Akalale v Munyes (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3995 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a stay application because the applicant gave no evidence of loss and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable or inordinate delay
- 2.Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss she stands to suffer if stay is not granted
- 3.Whether the applicant offered security for the due realization of the decree
Key legal issues
#Conditions for grant of stay of execution under Order 42
The three conditions - no unreasonable delay, substantial loss, and security - must all be met; the applicant failed on substantial loss and security
The court applied established stay jurisprudence: pendency of an appeal is not an automatic stay; the discretion must be exercised on sound principles based on evidential material. The applicant offered only general allegations of loss, no security, and an unexplained delay of nearly a month.
Substantial loss and evidentiary burden
Execution per se is not substantial loss; the applicant tendered no valuation report, photographs, business records or building plans to substantiate the alleged loss
Relying on authorities including Wangalwa v Chesoto and Kang'ethe Kinyanjui, the court held that an applicant must show what loss or damage would negate the substratum of the appeal. The applicant, declared a trespasser with her counterclaim dismissed, did not substantiate the claimed irreparable loss.
Security for due realization of the decree
Security is mandatory and none was offered; willingness to comply with court-imposed terms is not enough
Citing Arun C. Sharma and Focin Motorcycle, the court held that security acts as a guarantee of due performance of the decree and a proposal of security is a mark of good faith. The applicant merely alleged willingness to comply with terms, which the court found insufficient.
Legal principles established
#- A stay applicant must file the application without unreasonable delay, demonstrate substantial loss, and offer security for the due realization of the decree; the three conditions must be met distinctly and separately
- Mere or vague assertions of substantial loss are insufficient; the applicant must lay tangible evidence upon which the court can find substantial loss
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 10/4/2026 seeking stay of execution is dismissed
- 2.The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application
- 3.The deputy registrar is directed to call for the lower court file for mention in a month
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Lower court (not named in the judgment)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the lower court decree/judgment of 11/3/2026 pending appeal
The application lacked merit: delay was unexplained, no substantial loss substantiated, and no security offered
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs awarded to the respondent).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Looking at the totality of the foregoing, the court finds the application lacking merit. It is dismissed with costs. The deputy registrar is directed to call for the lower court file for mention in a month.
Pendency of an appeal does not amount to an automatic stay. The three conditions must be met sequentially, distinctly, and separately.
Execution per se, as held in Wangalwa -vs- Chesoto [2012] eKLR, does not amount to substantial loss.
A proposal made by an applicant for security is a mark of good faith and that an application for stay is not just meant to deny the respondent the fruits of his judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The replying affidavit is sworn on 16/3/2026 but responds to an application dated 10/4/2026 - the affidavit date precedes the application date
The judgment states the application was filed on 13/4/2026 although it is dated 10/4/2026; the delay period is computed from the lower court judgment of 11/3/2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akalale v Munyes (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3995 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 10/4/2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3995/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.